Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

Is this the policy that Danny Alexander was for or against?

I can't remember. He can't remember. He hopes no one can remember.

[RunRickyRun]

Hunt getting the decision is all too convenient.

Ah well, the long arm of the Murdoch Empire grows.

All I can hope for is that Hunt will make Murdoch sell the Times - Then I could get something decent to read on a Wednesday when Julie Bullshit is writing in the Indie.

[tonyh29]

Does anyone seriously think any political party in the UK would block the BSkyB deal ?

move along chaps no political points to be scored here

I'm loving your new found attitude towards the government.

sigh , if you think a labour Govt would have blocked the deal then your are more deluded than Mr Deluded from Deludedshire

or does being in Murdochs pocket from 97 - 2009 not mean anything any more ?

[peterms]

Is this the policy that Danny Alexander was for or against?

I can't remember. He can't remember. He hopes no one can remember.

I expect this is a breach of copyright, for which I am truly sorry.

[snowychap]

I expect this is a breach of copyright, for which I am truly sorry.

Well, I was thinking more of this:

Save our Forests!

Here's an excerpt:

...Unsurprisingly when this privatisation by the back door approach was debated the SNP were backed by the Tories, the SNP’s unlikely but ever loyal bedfellows. ...

And here's a nice pic:

Lucky they didn't have him signing some kind of pledge.

[avfc89]

Does anyone seriously think any political party in the UK would block the BSkyB deal ?

move along chaps no political points to be scored here

I'm loving your new found attitude towards the government.

sigh , if you think a labour Govt would have blocked the deal then your are more deluded than Mr Deluded from Deludedshire

or does being in Murdochs pocket from 97 - 2009 not mean anything any more ?

I made no comment on that subject, and you're probably correct in your assumption. But remember this isn't a Labour government.

[peterms]

I expect this is a breach of copyright, for which I am truly sorry.

Well, I was thinking more of this:

Save our Forests!

Here's an excerpt:

...Unsurprisingly when this privatisation by the back door approach was debated the SNP were backed by the Tories, the SNP’s unlikely but ever loyal bedfellows. ...

And here's a nice pic:

Lucky they didn't have him signing some kind of pledge.

That's a great one. The tory policy is so much more extreme than the SNP one the libs are "campaigning" against.

So much of their approach harks back to their days of campaigning about cracked pavements. They were so much more at home on that level. They really haven't got their collective head around what they're involved in now.

[snowychap]

I'd like to give credit to Andrew Neil and/or the various tellybox programmes on which he appears.

[leviramsey]

Question: do you endorse money creation?

Yes.

So you endorse inflation and concentration of physical wealth (the former is the consequence of money creation and the latter is a consequence of the former).

[leviramsey]

Governments do create money from nowhere, and you're quite right that this creates consequences. Those consequences could be economic growth and increased national wealth, or in circumstances where the creation of government credit far outstrips the underlying capacity of the economy, it could be damaging and inflationary. So if the creation of government credit is used to attempt to purchase goods and services beyond the ability of the economy to provide them, inflation must result. If the economy has a lot of slack, then creating money to purchase things will provide stimulus and growth. I'm not saying, at all, that the creation of money and credit will always and everywhere solve problems, regardless of the state of the economy or the purpose to which the money is put.

How does one determine the ability of the economy to provide goods and services? Who would make such determinations? How might one guard against those who believe they would benefit from inflation/deflation from influencing things?

The economy is far too important for any government or the bankers (wait, they're now the same thing...) to be trusted with.

[snowychap]

The economy is far too important for any government or the bankers (wait, they're now the same thing...) to be trusted with.

And, maybe, it's far too important to be entrusted to corporates.

And, maybe, to individuals with an inappropriate level of power and/or information?

[leviramsey]

Ok Peter - and don't take this the wrong way - the possible solutions that UK can take unilaterally without massively damaging our economy are what?

Invest in public infrastructure. The rate and location of investment would need to be planned so as not to overheat various sectors, or else construction companies just put prices up.

So who does the planning and how would one ensure that construction companies just didn't put the prices up?

It sure would be a great thing for a construction company to bung whoever does the planning to skew the plans a certain way (or for whoever does the planning to quietly take a small stake in a particular construction company).

Start planning a change to the taxation system, to focus on land tax instead of income tax. The reason for this would be to tackle the uncontrolled volatility in the property market which has done so much to fuel boom and bust, as well as creating massive indebtedness across the whole population in order to further enrich the holders of wealth.

Largely agree, though I'd go further and:

* abolish VAT and most consumption taxes (apart from, possibly, energy from certain sources)

* abolish income tax

* abolish capital gains tax

* abolish inheritance tax

* impose a per annum tax on assets, most especially on debt. A few percent a year on debt, directly paid by the creditor (this could be an optional tax, with the caveat that the creditor can only obtain a judgment from the state if they either paid the tax continuously or pay it at the time of collection plus a suitably punitive (say, 50% per annum, compounded) interest rate), though the tax would ultimately reflect itself in higher interest rates. Asset taxation will generally tend to move assets from less-productive to more-productive uses and make the economy more efficient.

Introduce proper regulation of the finance sector. There's only so much that can be done on this unilaterally, but something is better than the absence of effective regulation we've seen recently.

Again, who decides what regulation is proper and how does one guard against undue influence of certain interests?

Enhance skills training, looking especially at the skills we are most likely to need in the near to medium future.

How does one determine what skills will be needed in the near to medium future and who would make such determinations?

[leviramsey]

The economy is far too important for any government or the bankers (wait, they're now the same thing...) to be trusted with.

And, maybe, it's far too important to be entrusted to corporates.

And, maybe, to individuals with an inappropriate level of power and/or information?

Indeed... and that's what free markets (as opposed to capitalism, most especially of the crony variety) deliver.

[snowychap]

Indeed... and that's what free markets (as opposed to capitalism, most especially of the crony variety) deliver.

In the text books they might well do (they still deliver the nasty to some, too).

[snowychap]

Asset taxation will generally tend to move assets from less-productive to more-productive uses and make the economy more efficient.

It'll only move the ownership from the one small group of bandits to another small group of bandits, though, won't it?

The rest will still be trickle down bollocks.

[leviramsey]

Asset taxation will generally tend to move assets from less-productive to more-productive uses and make the economy more efficient.

It'll only move the ownership from the one small group of bandits to another small group of bandits, though, won't it?

As long as the small groups of bandits make the most productive use of the asset (without resorting to leverage etc.)...

(...it's a rather large assumption that there is a correlation between size of an enterprise and its productivity).

[snowychap]

As long as the small groups of bandits make the most productive use of the asset (without resorting to leverage etc.)...

I'm waiting for the rest of the sentence (and the bit about not exploiting the actual people who are (ab)used to make the productive use of the asset :winkold:).

[snowychap]

I am starting to feel a little uncomfortable about the nature, method and direction of the Torygraph leaks/stings.

What are they trying to do? (Bearing in mind the possible source of the expense info, who is behind this?)

The media ought to be there to help hold governments to account and not to try and mould them to their will.

So, serious political issues at play here, what is happening in the media? Is it a real infight?

[Awol]

So, serious political issues at play here, what is happening in the media? Is it a real infight?

Despite their pompus rants against wikileaks maybe they are simply jealous that the Guardian is getting all the attention at the moment?

Maybe because of the fact that their expenses scandal expose demonstrably changed the course of politics (for a while, at least) the temptation to influence/engineer because they can has gone to the editors heads?

Maybe they are trying to undermine the Lib Dem part of the Government to bring the down the coalition in an attempt to get a new election (a risky course given the current flighty nature of the markets)?

Maybe they are acting on behalf of the Tory right who are undoubtedly finding Cameron's love in with Clegg (and abandonment of the core vote) a hard act to swallow?

Some/all/none of the above for all I know, but making open communication between an MP and their 'constituents' more difficult doesn't seem like a blow struck for democracy to me.

[blandy]

Here we go. Fresh from experiencing the outstanding success of selling Heathrow to a Spanish conglomorate and seeing how wisely it then made investment decisions for the benefit of the general public, the government is now planning to sell the nation's entire forests to someone or other. This calls for a phrase from Richard Littlejohn. Will it be "to hell in a handcart", or "you couldn't make it up"?

For sale: all of our forests. Not some of them, nor most of them – the whole lot

Tories have never been treehuggers, but their plans to sell off all state-owned forests are unwarranted, unwanted and unworkable...

Part of our policy is clearly established: we wish to proceed with very substantial disposal of public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it…...

The Woodland trust, which I follow closely etc. has been consulting people about this, I also filled in a survey from the last Gov't about what to do with the Forests. Anyway,

The Woodland Trust has long held the view that not all of the existing public forest estate needs to be held in public ownership, especially those sites whose purpose is primarily the production of timber and which provide few benefits to the public, or where local community ownership is a viable option. But we have concerns about the fallout from a substantially accelerated disposal programme of public forest land of value for wildlife and for people....

more here